Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for prevention of withdrawal syndrome in the pediatric intensive care unit: protocol for an adaptive, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-profit clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mondardini MC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6907190 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for prevention of withdrawal syndrome in the pediatric intensive care unit: protocol for an adaptive, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-profit clinical trial.
Mondardini Maria Cristina MC Sperotto Francesca F Daverio Marco M Caramelli Fabio F Gregori Dario D Caligiuri Maria Francesca MF Vitale Francesca F Cecini Maria Teresa MT Piastra Marco M Mancino Aldo A Pettenazzo Andrea A Conti Giorgio G Amigoni Angela A
Trials 20191211 1
<h4>Background</h4>Prolonged treatment with analgesic and sedative drugs in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) may lead to undesirable effects such as dependence and tolerance. Moreover, during analgosedation weaning, patients may develop clinical signs of withdrawal, known as withdrawal syndrome (WS). Some studies indicate that dexmedetomidine, a selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist, may be useful to prevent WS, but no clear evidence supports these data. The aims of the present study are to ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPreventing carriage of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms from the aerodigestive tract is an infection control strategy used to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units. However, antibiotic use in selective decontamination protocols is controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of oral administration of a probiotic, namely Lactobacillus, on gastric and respiratory tract colonization/infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains. Our hypothesis was that an indigenous flora should exhibit a protective effect against secondary colonization.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study between March 2003 and October 2004 in a 17-bed intensive care unit of a teaching hospital in Clermont-Ferrand, France. Consecutive patients with a unit stay of longer than 48 hours were included, 106 in the placebo group and 102 in the probiotic group. Through a nasogastric feeding tube, patients received either 109 colony-forming units unity forming colony of Lactobacillus casei rhamnosus or placebo twice daily, from the third day after admission to discharge. Digestive tract carriage of P. aeruginosa was monitored by cultures of gastric aspirates at admission, once a week thereafter and on discharge. In addition, bacteriological analyses of respiratory tract specimens were conducted to determine patient infectious status.ResultsThe occurrence of P. aeruginosa respiratory colonization and/or infection was significantly delayed in the probiotic group, with a difference in median delay to acquisition of 11 days versus 50 days (P = 0.01), and a nonacquisition expectancy mean of 69 days versus 77 days (P = 0.01). The occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to P. aeruginosa in the patients receiving the probiotic was less frequent, although not significantly reduced, in patients in the probiotic group (2.9%) compared with those in the placebo group (7.5%). After multivariate Cox proportional hazards modelling, the absence of probiotic treatment increased the risk for P. aeruginosa colonization in respiratory tract (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.2, 95% confidence interval - 1.1 to 9.1).ConclusionIn this pilot study, oral administration of a probiotic delayed respiratory tract colonization/infection by P. aeruginosa.Trial registrationThe trial registration number for this study is NCT00604110.
| S-EPMC2481460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDexmedetomidine (DEX) is a centrally acting alpha-2-adrenoceptor agonist that has potential in the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) owing to its ability to produce arousable sedation and to inhibit the adrenergic system without respiratory depression. The objective of this randomized controlled study was to evaluate whether addition of DEX to benzodiazepine (BZD) therapy is effective and safe for AWS patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsEligible participants were randomly assigned to intervention (Group D; n = 36) or control (Group C; n = 36). In Group D, DEX infusion was started at a dose of 0.2-1.4 μg/kg/h and titrated to achieve the target sedation level (-2 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS)) with symptom-triggered BZD (10 mg diazepam bolus) was used as needed. Patients in Group C received only symptom-triggered 10 mg boluses of diazepam. The primary efficacy outcomes were 24-h diazepam consumption and cumulative diazepam dose required over the course of the ICU stay; secondary outcomes included length of ICU stay, sedation and communication quality and haloperidol requirements.ResultsMedian 24-h diazepam consumption during the study was significantly lower in Group D (20 vs. 40 mg, p < 0.001), as well as median cumulative diazepam dose during the ICU stay (60 vs. 90 mg, p < 0.001). The median percentage of time in the target sedation range was higher in Group D (median 90 % (90-95) vs. 64.5 % (60-72.5; p < 0.001). DEX infusion was also associated with better nurse-assessed patient communication (<0.001) and fewer patients requiring haloperidol treatment (2 vs. 10 p = 0.02). One patient in Group D and four in Group C were excluded owing to insufficient control of AWS symptoms and use of additional sedatives (p = 0.36). There were no severe adverse events in either group. Spontaneous breathing remained normal in all patients. Bradycardia was a common adverse event in Group D (10 vs. 2; p = 0.03).ConclusionsDEX significantly reduced diazepam requirements in ICU patients with AWS and decreased the number of patients who required haloperidol for severe agitation and hallucinations. DEX use was also associated with improvement in diverse aspects of sedation quality and the quality of patient communication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02496650.
| S-EPMC4630264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo determine the preventive and therapeutic effect of dexmedetomidine on intensive care unit (ICU) delirium.MethodsThe literature search using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed (August 1, 2018) to detect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ICU patients receiving dexmedetomidine. Articles were included if they assessed the influence of dexmedetomidine compared to a sedative agent on incidence of ICU delirium or treatment of this syndrome. Accordingly, relevant articles were allocated to the following two groups: (1) articles that assessed the delirium incidence (incidence comparison) or articles that assessed the treatment of delirium (treatment comparison). Incidence of delirium and delirium resolution were the primary outcomes. We combined treatment effects comparing dexmedetomidine versus (1) placebo, (2) standard sedatives, and (3) opioids in random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias for each included RCT was assessed following Cochrane standards.ResultsThe literature search resulted in 28 articles (25 articles/4975 patients for the incidence comparison and three articles/166 patients for the treatment comparison). In the incidence comparison, heterogeneity was present in different subgroups. Administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower overall incidence of delirium when compared to placebo (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.70; I2 = 37%), standard sedatives (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.86; I2 = 69%), as well as to opioids (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; I2 = 0%). Use of dexmedetomidine significantly increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension. Limited data were available on circulatory insufficiency and mortality. In the treatment comparison, the comparison drugs in the three RCTs were placebo, midazolam, and haloperidol. The resolution of delirium was measured differently in each study. Two out of the three studies indicated clear favorable effects for dexmedetomidine (i.e., compared to placebo and midazolam). The study comparing dexmedetomidine with haloperidol was a pilot study (n = 20) with high variability in the results.ConclusionFindings suggest that dexmedetomidine reduces incidence and duration of ICU delirium. Furthermore, our systematic searches show that there is limited evidence if a delirium shall be treated with dexmedetomidine.
| S-EPMC6148680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIncidence of delirium after cardiac surgery remains high and delirium has a significant burden on short-term and long-term outcomes. Multiple causes can trigger delirium occurence, and it has been hypothesised that sleep disturbances can be one of them. Preserving the circadian rhythm with overnight infusion of low-dose dexmedetomidine has been shown to lower the occurrence of delirium in older patients after non-cardiac surgery. However, these results remain controversial. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the usefulness of sleep induction by overnight infusion of dexmedetomidine to prevent delirium after cardiac surgery.Methods and analysisDexmedetomidine after Cardiac Surgery for Prevention of Delirium is an investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel, multicentre, double-blinded trial. Nine centres in France will participate in the study. Patients aged 65 years or older and undergoing cardiac surgery will be enrolled in the study. The intervention starts on day 0 (the day of surgery) until intensive care unit (ICU) discharge; the treatment is administered from 20:00 to 08:00 on the next day. Infusion rate is modified by the treating nurse or the clinician with an objective of Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale score from -1 to +1. The primary outcome is delirium occurrence evaluated with confusion assessment method for the ICU two times per day during 7 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes include incidence of agitation related events, self-evaluated quality of sleep, cognitive evaluation 3 months after surgery and quality of life 3 months after surgery. The sample size is 348.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved for all participating centers by the French Central Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France VI, registration number 2018-000850-22). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03477344.
| S-EPMC8996049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is common practice in many centers to offer antithrombotic medications to women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, in the presence or absence of inherited thrombophilia. Although no benefit of aspirin vs placebo has been clearly demonstrated, a double-blind placebo-controlled trial on the effect of low-molecular-weight heparin is lacking. We enrolled 258 pregnant women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (≥2 consecutive miscarriages before 15 weeks' gestation) and a negative thrombophilia workup. They were randomly assigned to receive one daily subcutaneous injection of enoxaparin 40 mg or placebo until 35 weeks' gestation. We included 256 women (mean age 32 years, ≥3 miscarriages: 72%; mean gestational age 39 days of amenorrhea) in the intention-to-treat analysis; 66.6% of 138 who received enoxaparin had a live birth vs 72.9% of 118 who received placebo. The absolute difference was -6% (95% CI, -17.1 to 5.1), excluding a 10% increase in the rate of live-birth on enoxaparin (P = .34). In this first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) did not improve the chance of a live birth in nonthrombophilic women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00740545 and the French National Health and Drug Safety Agency (EudraCT #2006-003350-18).
| S-EPMC4432556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rehospitalization is an important and costly outcome that occurs commonly in several diseases encountered in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). Although alcohol use disorders are present in 40% of ICU survivors and alcohol withdrawal is the most common alcohol-related reason for admission to an ICU, rates and predictors of rehospitalization have not been previously reported in this population.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of medical ICU survivors with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal using 2 administrative databases. The primary outcome was time to rehospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included time to first emergency department or urgent care clinic visit in the subset of ICU survivors who were not rehospitalized. Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted for age, gender, race, homelessness, smoking, and payer source.Of 1,178 patients discharged from the medical ICU over the study period, 468 (40%) were readmitted to the hospital and 54 (4%) died within 1 year. Schizophrenia (hazard ratio 2.23, 95% CI 1.57, 3.34, p < 0.001), anxiety disorder (hazard ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.30, 3.32, p < 0.01), depression (hazard ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.05, 2.40, p = 0.03), and Deyo comorbidity score ?3 (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.09, 1.89, p = 0.01) were significant predictors of time to death or first rehospitalization. Bipolar disorder was associated with time to first emergency department or urgent care clinic visit (hazard ratio 2.03, 95% CI 1.24, 3.62, p < 0.01) in the 656 patients who were alive and not rehospitalized within 1 year.The presence of a psychiatric comorbidity is a significant predictor of multiple measures of unplanned healthcare utilization in medical ICU survivors with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal. This finding highlights the potential importance of targeting longitudinal multidisciplinary care to patients with a dual diagnosis.
| S-EPMC4045620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Propofol may lead to patient recall and discomfort when used for sedation in elective cardioversion. The aim of the present study was to evaluate dexmedetomidine as an additive to propofol for sedation in elective cardioversion.A total of 500 patients undergoing elective cardioversion were randomized into Group 1 (n = 250) and Group 2 (n = 250) on the basis of computer-generated randomization table. Patients in Group 1 were given dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) over 10 min before giving propofol (1 mg/kg), while patients in Group 2 were given only propofol (1 mg/kg). One or two additional doses of 0.5 mg/kg propofol were given if modified Ramsay Sedation Score (mRSS) was <5. Number of patients requiring additional doses were noted. Any hemodynamic or respiratory complication along with the mean time to recovery (mRSS = 1) was recorded. Patient recall, patient discomfort, and further requirement of cardioversion in the next 24 h were also noted.About 10% patients in Group 1 and 64% patients in Group 2 required the first additional dose of propofol. While no patient in Group 1 required second dose, 16% patients in Group 2 required second dose of propofol. The mean time to recovery in Group 1 was 8.36 ± 3.08 min and 8.22 ± 2.38 min in Group 2 (P = 0.569). Sixty-seven patients (26.8%) in Group 1 and 129 patients (51.6%) in Group 2 reported remembering something (P < 0.0001), i.e., recall. Thirty-five patients (14%) in Group 1 and 79 patients (31.6%) in Group 2 reported dreaming during the procedure (P < 0.0001). Visual analog scale score was higher in Group 1 as compared to Group 2. Six patients in Group 1 and 24 patients in Group 2 had a requirement of repeat cardioversion in 24-h follow-up (P = 0.001).Dexmedetomidine is a useful adjunct to propofol for elective cardioversion.
| S-EPMC5535578 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux is considered to cause sleep disturbance, whereas proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration is reported to improve insomnia associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux are asymptomatic and a significant number with erosive esophagitis are also reported to be asymptomatic. We examined whether PPI administration has a therapeutic effect for improving insomnia in patients without reflux symptoms in the same manner as patients with reflux symptoms. METHODS: We performed a randomized multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial using 176 patients with insomnia regardless of the presence of reflux symptoms. The patients were divided into those administered omeprazole (20 mg) or a placebo for 14 days. Four self-reporting questionnaires, QOLRAD-J (Japanese translation of Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and a sleep diary, were used for evaluating GERD-related quality of life (QOL) and sleep disturbance. RESULTS: We evaluated 171 patients with insomnia, of whom 69 had typical reflux symptoms. Omeprazole statistically significantly improved GERD-related QOL from 30.8±0.7 to 33.0±0.5 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, total) and from 6.0±0.2 to 6.6±0.1 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, sleep-related) when administrated to patients with reflux symptoms. Omeprazole also improved insomnia significantly better than the placebo in patients with reflux symptoms; PSQI, from 9.3±0.5 to 7.9±0.5 (P<0.01) and sleep diary, from 2.1±0.1 to 1.8±0.1 (P<0.01). On the other hand, the therapeutic effects of omeprazole and the placebo were not different in patients without reflux symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that PPI administration is effective only for insomnia in patients with reflux symptoms.
| S-EPMC4077042 | biostudies-other
Project description:Patients in the ICU often sleep poorly for various reasons, which may predispose to delirium. We previously conducted a clinical trial in which we tested the efficacy of ramelteon, a melatonin-receptor agonist used to treat insomnia, versus placebo, in preventing ICU delirium in patients who underwent elective pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (PTE) surgery. Here we examine sleep, activity, and circadian patterns, measured with actigraphy, to understand changes in these metrics with our intervention and in those with and without delirium. Participants wore wrist actigraphy devices while recovering post-operatively in the ICU. For sleep analysis, we extracted total sleep time and sleep fragmentation metrics over the 22:00 to 06:00 period nightly, and daytime nap duration from the daytime period (0:600 to 22:00) for each participant. For activity analyses, we extracted the following metrics: total daytime activity count (AC), maximum daytime AC, total nighttime AC, and maximum nighttime AC. Next, we performed a nonparametric circadian analysis on ACs over each 24-h day and extracted the following: interdaily stability (IS), intra-daily variability (IV), relative amplitude (RA), and low and high periods of activity (L5 and M10) as well as their start times. These metrics were compared between patients who received ramelteon versus placebo, and between patients who became delirious versus those who did not develop delirium. We additionally made comparisons between groups for daytime and nighttime light levels. No differences in sleep, activity, circadian metrics or light levels were found between drug groups. Delirious patients, when compared to those who were never delirious, had a lower IS (0.35 ± 0.16 vs. 0.47 ± 0.23; P = 0.006). Otherewise, no differences in IV, L5, M10, or RA were found between groups. L5 and M10 activity values increased significantly over the post-extubation for the whole cohort. No differences were found for daytime or nighttime light levels between groups. Overall, ramelteon did not impact sleep or circadian metrics in this cohort. Consistent with clinical experience, delirious patients had less inter-daily stability in their rest-activity rhythms. These data suggest that actigraphy might have value for individual assessment of sleep in the ICU, and for determining and detecting the impact of interventions directed at improving sleep and circadian activity rhythms in the ICU.Trial registration: REGISTERED at CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02691013. Registered on February 24, 2016 by principal investigator, Dr. Robert L. Owens.
| S-EPMC9879948 | biostudies-literature